Yup, I kicked the can down the road. My next merge for #901 had the same issue.
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Eric Johnson <erjoh...@apache.org> wrote: > Not sure if this related, but I had a hard time merging #856 in this > morning. I was following my normal procedure using git-am, updating > CHANGES.rst, then rebasing to squash into a single commit. Prior to rebase, > I'd see 065d1919d8cd1e651b92af6220b1408437b07563 in my git-log. During > rebase -i, I wouldn't see that commit in the list and if I proceeded with > my squash, that commit would get dropped. > > So, I either made the problem worse by not rebasing and pushing two > commits (one for #856 and one for updating changes), or I just kicked the > can down the road. But maybe it'll be "fixed" for next committer? > > My git-foo isn't super strong and I'd welcome insight into how I could've > cleaned it up with git commands. > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:53 AM, Tomaz Muraus <to...@apache.org> wrote: > >> I personally used all in the past (am, merge, apply-patch), depending on >> the scenario of which one was easier to work with / apply (I a lot of >> times >> I also need to check out the original branch and do some merge foo so I >> can >> merge it cleanly into trunk). >> >> I do prefer am since it doesn't result in a merge commit which makes the >> history look slightly nicer. >> >> Having said that, I'm fine with whatever approach is the easier to manage >> for the person applying the patch as long as it meets this criteria: >> >> - Preserve original commit author (preserve original commits as the are) >> - Commit(s) are signed off by the person applying the changes >> - We can easily add "Closed #PRNUMBER" or similar message to the commit(s) >> message >> >> Another option also is to try "git merge --no-commit" / "git merge >> --squash", but we need to be careful with those so we don't rewrite >> history >> (apache git repo actually doesn't allow pushing that, but it can still be >> annoying). >> >> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:49 PM, anthony shaw <anthony.p.s...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > Our PR process (applies to committers but anyone else is welcome to >> > weigh in) says to download the patch file from GitHub and apply the >> > patch using the `git am` command. >> > >> > I find git am to be so fragile, typically I use the --3way flag to >> > help it try and resolve conflicts but normally is just stumbles on the >> > slightest issue. >> > >> > The new process I've been using is : >> > >> > git fetch https://github.com/<remote user>/libcloud >> > <remote-branch>:github-<pr> >> > git merge <github-pr> >> > >> > .. edit merge message to included Closes #PR >> > >> > Then push to apache trunk. >> > >> > An obvious advantage is that in GitHub the PRs show as merged. >> > https://github.com/apache/libcloud/pull/899 >> > >> > The merge tool in git (instead of the patch) is so much more reliable. >> > >> > What do people think of this approach? Here is an example - >> > https://github.com/apache/libcloud/commit/065d1919d8cd1e651b >> 92af6220b140 >> > 8437b07563 >> > >> > Ant >> > >> > >
